Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses a federal district court ruling permitting Alabama to execute Jeffrey Lee via nitrogen hypoxia despite the judge’s own findings that the method causes severe suffering, examining the decision’s constitutional implications and the broader erosion of Eighth Amendment protections. Professor Sarat argues that Judge Marks’s originalist interpretation effectively nullifies the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by limiting its scope to methods the Founders would have recognized as barbaric, rather than applying the “evolving standards of decency” framework the clause requires to remain meaningful.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton discusses the systemic barriers child sex abuse survivors face when seeking justice and highlights three individuals who use their professional expertise to force institutional transparency and reform. Professor Hamilton argues that while these survivors courageously drive progress, society must stop placing the burden of child protection on the victims and instead proactively hold institutions accountable.

University of South Carolina, Joseph F. Rice School of Law professor Seth W. Stoughton discusses the legal standards and critical factual questions surrounding the use of deadly force by a federal ICE agent in the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, emphasizing the need for a careful and evidence-based evaluation under both constitutional and state law. Professor Stoughton argues that responsible analysis must focus on whether the agent’s conduct created or avoided unnecessary danger, whether a reasonable officer would have perceived an imminent threat, and whether the threat could have been mitigated without resorting to deadly force.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin discusses the documentary Nuns vs. the Vatican, which exposes the systemic sexual and spiritual abuse of nuns by Catholic clergy, particularly focusing on Jesuit priest Marco Rupnik, and the Church’s longstanding failure to address such abuses. Professor Griffin argues that the Catholic Church has deliberately hidden and protected abusive priests, prioritizing its reputation over justice, and calls for legal intervention and public accountability in response to these crimes.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores how the pervasive presence of war, violence, and graphic content—especially through social media—has shaped the mental health and worldview of the current generation of college students. Professor Sarat argues that educators must acknowledge these traumatic influences and develop strategies to help young people navigate a world filled with conflict, despair, and cynicism in order to cultivate resilience, critical thinking, and hope.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision to stay Robert Roberson’s execution and send his case back to trial court to reconsider the now-discredited shaken baby syndrome diagnosis that led to his conviction. Professor Sarat argues that while the court’s intervention is a positive step, it falls short by ignoring other critical issues in Roberson’s case—such as his undiagnosed autism, poor legal representation, and evidence pointing to his daughter’s death from natural causes—thus failing to address the full scope of the miscarriage of justice.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the Supreme Court case FCC v. Consumers’ Research et al., which challenges the constitutionality of the FCC’s delegation of authority under the nondelegation doctrine. Professor Amar argues that while the nondelegation doctrine has been historically dormant, the case highlights important constitutional considerations about the delegation of legislative authority, specifically the ability to reclaim delegated power, and he urges the Court to address these broader issues if it examines the nondelegation questions in this case.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Donald Trump’s disregard for legal and constitutional constraints during his first week in office, marked by actions such as attempting to alter birthright citizenship and dismissing inspectors general unlawfully. Professor Sarat argues that these lawless actions are a deliberate strategy to test the checks and balances of the U.S. constitutional system, warning that a lack of pushback from other branches of government could pave the way for authoritarianism.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Indiana’s planned December 2024 execution of Joseph Corcoran and examines the state’s unusual policy of barring media witnesses from executions, with context about how other states handle media access to executions. Professor Sarat argues that Indiana’s media ban undermines transparency and public accountability, as journalists serve as crucial neutral observers who can document the government's most extreme action and inform the public about how their tax dollars are being used.

In this second of a series of columns, University of Toronto visiting law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explores whether Americans concerned about Donald Trump’s potential return to office can realistically relocate to other countries, drawing from his personal experience as an expatriate and broader analysis of international migration patterns. Professor Buchanan argues that large-scale emigration from the U.S. is virtually impossible due to logistical constraints in host countries (even immigrant-friendly ones like Canada), noting that even temporary surges in immigration can overwhelm countries’ housing, healthcare, and education systems while potentially triggering xenophobic political backlash.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar and Illinois Law professor Jason Mazzone discuss a legal challenge to Mississippi’s law allowing the counting of absentee ballots that arrive up to five business days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Professors Amar and Mazzone argue that the law is consistent with federal election statutes and constitutional principles, and that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of “Election Day” is overly narrow and inconsistent with other accepted election practices.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the Republican National Convention’s strategy of downplaying controversial issues like abortion, the January 6 insurrection, and election denialism. Professor Sarat argues that the GOP employed a “hidden ball trick” to conceal their true positions on these topics, deceiving voters and potentially harming democracy in their pursuit of power.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Harvard University’s recent decision to stop issuing official statements on public matters that do not directly affect the university’s core function, a move that other universities are also considering or have already taken. Professor Sarat argues that while this decision is controversial, it is a step in the right direction as it allows universities to focus on their essential purpose of seeking truth through open inquiry and debate, avoids the risk of chilling debate or alienating community members, and encourages individuals on campus to stand up for their beliefs through their work and lives as citizens.

The opinion piece discusses a recent Indiana appeals court ruling that granted religious exemptions to the state's restrictive abortion law based on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The author argues that this ruling could have broader implications, potentially providing a basis in federal constitutional law to challenge abortion restrictions nationwide on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a case challenging Washington State’s ban on conversion therapy, Tingley v. Ferguson, and specifically the implications of the dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Professor Dorf explains that their dissenting opinion demonstrates their willingness to invalidate such bans based on free speech, a stance that could undermine the regulation of medical practices. Professor Dorf points out that while a circuit split exists on the legality of conversion therapy bans, the broader concern is the potential impact of the Justices’ views on medical regulation, including recent decisions regarding access to abortion medication like mifepristone.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended affirmative action in higher education, is the worst legal decision of 2023, setting back efforts to dismantle white privilege in the U.S. and resisting the construction of a more inclusive society. Professor Sarat explains why the decision is undemocratic, exacerbating racial inequities and closing pathways to power and prosperity for students of color, contrary to the aspirations of a genuinely inclusive and egalitarian democracy.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last week’s conviction of Sam Bankman-Fried on fraud charges related to the operations of his cryptocurrency platform, FTX. Professor Dorf notes that while some view him as a contemporary Robin Hood, given his donations to effective altruistic causes, his actions raise questions about the line between altruism and criminality.

Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf criticizes Florida’s new middle school social studies education standards, which suggest that enslaved people benefited from slavery in some instances by learning skills such as carpentry or blacksmithing that they could later use for personal benefit. Professor Dorf argues that this perspective dangerously minimizes the horrors of slavery, and could be a calculated move by political figures like Governor Ron DeSantis to leverage culture war issues, distort historical truths, and consolidate power.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat comments on an announcement last March by Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards that he opposed capital punishment and points out that now Governor Edwards has the opportunity to prove his opposition. Professor Sarat argues that Governor Edwards should use his authority to order the Board of Pardons to hold hearings on the death row clemency petitions and review them on their merits to turn his abolitionist rhetoric into action.

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains why the “New Illinois” idea—which suggests separating the urbanized Chicago area from the rest of the state—is legally and politically implausible. Professor Amar points out two unanswered constitutional questions and the daunting political hurdles that make the “New Illinois” idea unlikely to ever be more than an idea.